www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.ide - Descent + DMD's bug that allows to use fully qualified names if they

reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
I'm trying to optimize the semantic analysis pass in Descent. The idea 
is to not load things up if they are not needed. For example:

---
module one;

import two;

void someMethod(Foo foo) {
   foo.x = 1;
}
---
module two;

import three;

class Foo {
   int x;
   Bar bar;
}
---
module three;

class Bar { }
---

Now, if I want to help the user by giving autocompletion, go to 
definition, etc., in module *one*, you can see that property "bar" is 
not even mentioned there, so module "three" would not be loaded, not 
even looked up.

I've managed to do this (DMD's compiler doesn't care about this because 
it needs to create an object file for the whole thing). The problem is 
that this optimization gives a semantic error when you use a fully 
qualified name for something that is privately imported in an imported 
module (a very known bug, I think). Although reporting this as error is 
good, because it is "how it should be", there are a lot of existing 
modules that depend on this functionality, so seeing an error there may 
be annoying.

I can't "fix" it because if I do it, I loose the optimization (module 
"three" would have to be loaded in this example, at least to preserve 
DMD's semantic). So I think I'll leave it like that (with the 
optimization on), but I wanted to know what did the community think 
about this.

I also wonder if it helps if I report these erorrs now marked by Descent 
into bugzilla...
Jul 02 2008
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doobnet gmail.com> writes:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 I'm trying to optimize the semantic analysis pass in Descent. The idea 
 is to not load things up if they are not needed. For example:
 
 ---
 module one;
 
 import two;
 
 void someMethod(Foo foo) {
   foo.x = 1;
 }
 ---
 module two;
 
 import three;
 
 class Foo {
   int x;
   Bar bar;
 }
 ---
 module three;
 
 class Bar { }
 ---
 
 Now, if I want to help the user by giving autocompletion, go to 
 definition, etc., in module *one*, you can see that property "bar" is 
 not even mentioned there, so module "three" would not be loaded, not 
 even looked up.
 
 I've managed to do this (DMD's compiler doesn't care about this because 
 it needs to create an object file for the whole thing). The problem is 
 that this optimization gives a semantic error when you use a fully 
 qualified name for something that is privately imported in an imported 
 module (a very known bug, I think). Although reporting this as error is 
 good, because it is "how it should be", there are a lot of existing 
 modules that depend on this functionality, so seeing an error there may 
 be annoying.
 
 I can't "fix" it because if I do it, I loose the optimization (module 
 "three" would have to be loaded in this example, at least to preserve 
 DMD's semantic). So I think I'll leave it like that (with the 
 optimization on), but I wanted to know what did the community think 
 about this.
 
 I also wonder if it helps if I report these erorrs now marked by Descent 
 into bugzilla...

Perhaps if possible you could show these errors in some other way than the usual way, some other color or something like that. Perhaps it could be an option you could turn off if possible.
Jul 03 2008
prev sibling parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 I'm trying to optimize the semantic analysis pass in Descent. The idea 
 is to not load things up if they are not needed. For example:
 
 ---
 module one;
 
 import two;
 
 void someMethod(Foo foo) {
   foo.x = 1;
 }
 ---
 module two;
 
 import three;
 
 class Foo {
   int x;
   Bar bar;
 }
 ---
 module three;
 
 class Bar { }
 ---
 
 Now, if I want to help the user by giving autocompletion, go to 
 definition, etc., in module *one*, you can see that property "bar" is 
 not even mentioned there, so module "three" would not be loaded, not 
 even looked up.
 
 I've managed to do this (DMD's compiler doesn't care about this because 
 it needs to create an object file for the whole thing). The problem is 
 that this optimization gives a semantic error when you use a fully 
 qualified name for something that is privately imported in an imported 
 module (a very known bug, I think). Although reporting this as error is 
 good, because it is "how it should be", there are a lot of existing 
 modules that depend on this functionality, so seeing an error there may 
 be annoying.
 
 I can't "fix" it because if I do it, I loose the optimization (module 
 "three" would have to be loaded in this example, at least to preserve 
 DMD's semantic). So I think I'll leave it like that (with the 
 optimization on), but I wanted to know what did the community think 
 about this.
 
 I also wonder if it helps if I report these erorrs now marked by Descent 
 into bugzilla...

You're talking about bug #313, right? (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=313) I think it's clearly a bug, there are even testcases for it, so the IDE should threat it as a bug, and any such illegal uses should be marked as errors in the IDE. You said "there are a lot of existing modules that depend on this functionality". Such as? I would find that odd, modules depending on that bug. -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Jul 05 2008
parent reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Bruno Medeiros a écrit :
 Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 I've managed to do this (DMD's compiler doesn't care about this 
 because it needs to create an object file for the whole thing). The 
 problem is that this optimization gives a semantic error when you use 
 a fully qualified name for something that is privately imported in an 
 imported module (a very known bug, I think). Although reporting this 
 as error is good, because it is "how it should be", there are a lot of 
 existing modules that depend on this functionality, so seeing an error 
 there may be annoying.

You're talking about bug #313, right? (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=313) I think it's clearly a bug, there are even testcases for it, so the IDE should threat it as a bug, and any such illegal uses should be marked as errors in the IDE. You said "there are a lot of existing modules that depend on this functionality". Such as? I would find that odd, modules depending on that bug.

Like... a lot of modules in phobos. But I think I got rid of that problem when I tweaked a little the way I optimized things (so the bug is back :-P).
Jul 05 2008
parent Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:

 Bruno Medeiros a écrit :
 Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 I've managed to do this (DMD's compiler doesn't care about this
 because it needs to create an object file for the whole thing). The
 problem is that this optimization gives a semantic error when you use
 a fully qualified name for something that is privately imported in an
 imported module (a very known bug, I think). Although reporting this
 as error is good, because it is "how it should be", there are a lot of
 existing modules that depend on this functionality, so seeing an error
 there may be annoying.

You're talking about bug #313, right? (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=313) I think it's clearly a bug, there are even testcases for it, so the IDE should threat it as a bug, and any such illegal uses should be marked as errors in the IDE. You said "there are a lot of existing modules that depend on this functionality". Such as? I would find that odd, modules depending on that bug.

Like... a lot of modules in phobos. But I think I got rid of that problem when I tweaked a little the way I optimized things (so the bug is back :-P).

Please mark it as a coding error/bug if I do something like that while coding in Descent :)
Jul 05 2008